But then why was that not included in the other trademarks? Starcraft's new expansion, Heroes of the Storm, Reaper of Souls, etc. all have servers to take care of as well. The fact that it popped up in this trademark, and this trademark ONLY is what concerns me.

a) to prevent the timeline from being altered and ensuring history occured just as it did, thereby justifying lore, not breaking lore
or b) to obtain objects from the past, which had canonically disappeared from history at the moment we 'borrowed them' anyway, there justifying lore, not breaking lore.

_________________
May i ask what justification anyone has to assume that if we were to time travel again it would be alter history (which we have never done) instead of to prevent history from being altered (which is what we have always done before)?

Because those who had formerly watched over history and ensured it occurred exactly as it should are no longer the timekeepers. At best, they see random glimpses of the past now.

We can no longer ensure everything happens exactly as it did before it was influenced. If Baby Garrosh were to find his way back, he could for all intent's purpose, become his own grandfather because no one would know it wasn't supposed to happen. (And, in turn, it becomes what was supposed to happen.)

So it creates a situation. Either:

a) The timeline was always meant to allow for this to happen, and the lore doesn't change. We just get involved, as the timeline was always supposed to allow.
or
b) The timeline gets fucked up, which is what the Bronze Dragonflight tried to prevent, but can no longer force themselves to travel to the right time to ensure they can fix it.

a) to prevent the timeline from being altered and ensuring history occured just as it did, thereby justifying lore, not breaking lore
or b) to obtain objects from the past, which had canonically disappeared from history at the moment we 'borrowed them' anyway, there justifying lore, not breaking lore.

_________________
May i ask what justification anyone has to assume that if we were to time travel again it would be alter history (which we have never done) instead of to prevent history from being altered (which is what we have always done before)?

Predictable boring expansion that means nothing next expansion if we preserve the timeline.

Because those who had formerly watched over history and ensured it occurred exactly as it should are no longer the timekeepers. At best, they see random glimpses of the past now.

We can no longer ensure everything happens exactly as it did before it was influenced. If Baby Garrosh were to find his way back, he could for all intent's purpose, become his own grandfather because no one would know it wasn't supposed to happen. (And, in turn, it becomes what was supposed to happen.)

So it creates a situation. Either:

a) The timeline was always meant to allow for this to happen, and the lore doesn't change. We just get involved, as the timeline was always supposed to allow.
or
b) The timeline gets fucked up, which is what the Bronze Dragonflight tried to prevent, but can no longer force themselves to travel to the right time to ensure they can fix it.

Let's ignore Garrosh. He's not going to be the villain of 2 expansions in a row and the main character of 3 in a row.

The only likely time plot would be one involving Wrathion. And what possible reason would Wrathion have to go back and screw with the Horde?

Originally Posted by Lumineus

World of Wisconsin. We travel to the real world to fight the minions of the latest Old god, Kurdwheychez the unudderable. Introducing the long-awaited cow level.

Maybe not but the whole trademark not marked for downloadable electronic or whataever tells me it's not a mapack either.

Blizzard do not destroy Jaina Proudmoore's character. Make her who she once was, not full of rage and vengeance.,If you are curious about me or about my writing aspirations, feel free to pst me. Paladin-Sorcerer at your service! My Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/Aeluron Big fanboy of Yrel now. Love her now

the whole naming conventions argument is dead on arrival
don't get caught up in refuting it, because no pattern can be discerned in a data set as small as 3 or 4 examples.
that's just form of apophenia

"Hi. My name's Jill and these are my four sons: James, John, Robert and Cheeseburger."
"Wait, that last one doesn't follow the pattern."
"Oh you and your Apophenia."